The Bishin Cutter wrote:
I think you're always going to see some attempt by the Big Ten trying to rebuild B1G-PAC in some form. A relationship through some sort of share will ease both conferences' media revenue woes if just because the overall alumni footprint will span the coasts, with shared content that can air across all key time slots. At this point, for the Big Ten, I don't know who adds to the pot individually to make it really worth their while for the long haul. I mean, other than Texas, or a school with a massive fanbase, like Notre Dame, but everyone wants them, and they aren't interested in the kind of schema the Big Ten wants its members to adhere.
I'll try to state this without injecting something that looks too fantastic. Recall at the time/period when this P5 'assertion of distinction' was getting formulated and major conferences were doing these new co-op bowl deals such as the Champions Bowl, behind that was also discussions to create this P4 formula. From an informal source not on the Internet, but once was a decision-making operative, I heard some background information on a 'private' session(s) whereby conference 'reps' did engage collectively in discussions with TV network executives to 'explore' the P4 move. OK, we would assume such stuff does go on behind the scenes. What may be surprising, is how close that almost happened about two years ago. The discussion centered on the B12 as the one that could be absorbed, and that included forces within the B12 supporting the idea. Why the B12? It had fewer members and it's location in the middle of the country was strategic, along with the passion level in the B12 was not super strong by all members to hang together. Also, the B12's GoR could be overcome with enough assured placements, the rationale went.
The B1G, apparently, had interest in strengthening the physical bridge with the PAC12, i. e. Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa schools, Kansas, potential newbies to the PAC12. And of course further nailing down everything Rose Bowl, new challenges, scheduling coops., and lucrative new media deals, etc., the thought was maybe 8 of the 10 B12 schools could be re-assigned to the other P4. The SEC and ACC were on-board to a degree; the ACC takes one B12 school (WVU?), and the SEC 1, but not two. The SEC was open to the thought of balancing the 'east' with an addition from the ACC, but not two more from the B12. And if west, the choice would be Oklahoma or 'maybe' Texas. This was in conflict with what the PAC12 was willing to do. If the PAC12 took four, Texas was required, TTU would be apparent, but the mix among Oklahoma and/or Kansas schools was complicated. The SEC, and maybe some others, did not want the PAC 12 coming out of this with all the most coveted B12 schools. Baylor and TCU did not fit into the scheme. Notre Dame was another problem, not wanting to join any conference FT for fb. The B1G still wanted ND in the new set-up, and preferred Texas and Oklahoma to go to their desirable cross-scheduling partner, the PAC12 if neither went to the B1G. So accordingly, cutting a deal with the Texas/OU sector, and with what the PAC12 wanted, and what the SEC was willing to take, conflicted. The fallout being, it was the SEC that ended up protecting the B12 as a P5. That made the anxious B12 schools happy. And whether it was the PAC12, or the SEC, or even the B1G or the ACC, Texas still had their demands for co-members and the LHN. Texas even explored a Notre Dame-style arrangement with the ACC. Nobody was amiable to that, including the ACC. And Texas and the SEC would not be a mutual sell without some considerable compromise and overcoming much old fallout.
I understand the value of the Rose Bowl and having scheduling agreements and so forth. But it looks like, time and time again, the B1G is way more committed to further cultivating that than the PAC12.